Poughkeepsie school chief sues district for $3 million

A "meet the candidates" for the 2018-19 Poughkeepsie school board forum was held May 7, 2018.
Nina Schutzman, Poughkeepsie Journal

Buy Photo

Nicole Williams, Superintendent of the City of Poughkeepsie School District during Wednesday's board meeting at Morse Elementary School on Feb 21, 2018. (Photo: Patrick Oehler/Poughkeepsie Journal)Buy Photo

Poughkeepsie Superintendent Nicole Williams is moving ahead with a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the school board and district, alleging she has suffered "humiliation, emotional distress, and damage to her reputation."

Williams is seeking damages for legal fees — up to $25,000, which she is entitled to each school year, as per her contract — along with $1 million each for three claims: breach of contract, retaliation and violation of due process, according to a counterclaim filed by her attorney, Stanley Silverstone.

The counterclaim was filed Monday in State Supreme Court in Dutchess County, along with Silverstone's response to a lawsuit the board filed against Williams in early April.

The board alleges that Williams has failed "to perform her duties in a manner" that is appropriate or beneficial to students. Despite Williams having allegedly engaged in "numerous acts of misconduct and incompetence that have harmed the district," the board says certain terms in her contract prevent it from firing her or holding her accountable.

The board wants the court to declare Williams' contract void in its entirety. Failing that, it wants a declaration that certain provisions are unlawful and therefore repealed.

Silverstone, in his legal filings, alleges that the board majority — President Felicia Watson, along with trustees Doreen Clifford and Debra Long — has repeatedly violated Williams' authority and contractual rights in an effort to force her to resign. The board's lawsuit, Silverstone said, is part of a "continuing campaign of harassment, humiliation, and retaliation."

The superintendent's "meritless counterclaims, on top of all of Dr. Williams' other meritless litigation, is another slap in the face to taxpayers who have to pay to defend against them," Watson told the Journal. "Many of these counterclaims are procedurally deficient. It is the Board's expectation that the court will deem her contract... illegal."

Williams, in legal filings, denies every allegation of wrongdoing listed in the board's lawsuit. She also denies the board's characterization of her contract terms, which were put into place last June, days before two of the five trustees left office after losing their seats in a heated election.

At that time, Williams was granted up to $25,000 a year to hire separate legal counsel to advise her on the legality of proposed board actions.

Another new provision requires the board to notify Williams "in writing (of) any criticism, complaint or suggestion within one school day." Any complaints that have not been shared in that manner are inadmissible at a disciplinary hearing. The board says those requirements essentially render Williams immune from termination.

Silverstone says the board has known about Williams new contract since it was put in place, has had its opinions on its validity for at least six months and waited an "unreasonably" long time to file its lawsuit. The delay "severely prejudiced" Williams' reputation and future employment prospects.

Allegations in the board's lawsuit include:

► An investigation by special counsel Todd Aldinger into potentially improper 2017 graduations raised concerns that Williams was "either derelict in performing her duties or complicit in the improprieties identified." Williams then filed an appeal to the state to try and stop the board "from investigating her impropriety."

Williams denies that she was "derelict in performing her duties or complicit in the improprieties," and denies that "there were serious irregularities with respect to the Class of 2017 graduation data," Silverstone wrote in legal filings. Meanwhile, the board released a preliminary report of the investigation to the media, "with the intent to publicly disparage, defame, and humiliate" Williams.

► The district has "failed to ensure that eligible struggling students receive adequate Academic Intervention Services (AIS) and English as a New Language (ENL) services" during Williams' tenure, according to the board. The district's "lack of AIS has generated at least one parent complaint" to the state Education Department.

Williams denies having enough knowledge or information sufficient "to form a belief as to the truth" of the allegations regarding the district's AIS program itself.

But the superintendent believes the parent's complaint was motivated by hostility toward her, and "not by a good faith belief" that the district had violated any law, regulation, or policy relating to AIS, Silverstone wrote.

The board says also alleges Williams may have "directed the misuse of district funds and/or by failed to report the misuse of district funds" by Ralph Coates, the former board president.

Williams has filed two appeals to the state this school year, one of which, related to a moratorium on involuntary teacher transfers, was decided primarily in her favor. The board recently filed an Article 78 proceeding to appeal the commissioner's decision.

The district has not paid any of Williams' legal invoices, according to Silverstone.

Williams filed a notice of claim in regard to these issues in January. A notice of claim precedes a lawsuit when the defendant is a municipality or school district.